Every bracketed choice in the statute (model_act_v3_4.txt, v3.4 tag), with the section it sits in, the line it sits on, what it governs, what the enacted state family chose where a sibling exists, and the drafting note that explains the shape. Brackets are an adopting state’s decision, not a gap: the architecture is handed over, the numbers are poured locally.
How to use it. Work the table top to bottom; every row is a decision a legislative counsel’s office would make anyway, gathered here so the pass takes one sitting instead of fourteen. Line numbers are against the v3.4 tag and are stable — cite them as model_act_v3_4.txt#L417. This file closes the mechanical half of READ FIRST item 9 (the conforming-amendment scaffold); the local-codification half still wants that state’s counsel.
One standing instruction, before the table. SEC. 3(c)(4)’s pin date — [1 August 2026] — must be set to a date certain preceding introduction and must never be drafted as a moving date. A moving date converts static legislative adoption into dynamic incorporation of another sovereign’s future enactments, which several state constitutions forbid outright and which would collapse the non-delegation posture the interim-standards bridge rests on (companion n.24). It is the one bracket in this table that is not a policy choice.
Thresholds and technical floors
Bracket
§
Line
Governs
Enacted sibling
Note
[10^24]
1(b)(1)
58
Derivations at or below this never extend a lineage
none — this Act’s own floor
n.36
[10^22]
1(b)(1)
60
The records-duty audit floor, decoupled from coverage
none
n.36 — the commons stays out, the paper trail stays on
[one] %
2
115
Percentage limb of the modifiability-evaluation budget
none
n.25; open for review at READ FIRST 6
[10^24]
2
116
Absolute limb of the same budget
none
n.25 — the limbs coincide at the 10^26 line
Commencement and clocks
Bracket
§
Line
Governs
Enacted sibling
Note
[180] days
3(c)(2)
173
Runway before the substantive layer commences
CA ran 94 days from signature
n.24
[90] days
3(c)(3)
198
Compliance period after the Agency’s standards issue
—
n.24 — fair notice at every joint
[540] days
3(c)(3)
206
Target for the Agency to propose initial standards
—
Bracketed and unenforceable by design; states may harden it
[1 August 2026]
3(c)(4)
211
The interim-standards pin date
—
Set to a date certain preceding introduction. Never a moving date. n.24
[90] days
12
493
Effective date after enactment
—
—
[180-day]
12
497
Transition for systems already deployed
—
—
[30] days
9(b)
407
Full incident report after preliminary notice
IL and NY both 72h/30d family
n.9, n.27
[10] days
9(b)
408
Supplemental reports after new information
21 C.F.R. § 803.56 pattern
n.9
[180] days
11
490
Agency must act on or decline a credible report
none
n.11 — the mandamus hook
[30] days
13(d)
599
Deadline to publish a revival order after a federal lapse
—
n.15
Money
Bracket
§
Line
Governs
Enacted sibling
Note
\$[1,000,000]
10(a)
417
Entity civil penalty, per violation per day
CA § 22757.15(a); NY § 1427; IL § 25(a) — all $1M, severity-scaled caps
n.19 — the family’s own figure
\$[3,000,000]
10(a)
419
The recidivist step after a prior final adjudication
NY § 1427; IL § 25(a)
n.19
\$[100,000]
10(b)
428
Individual fine, base misdemeanor tier
18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(5) parity
n.19 — preserve the twice-gain alternative when conforming to a local fine grid
\$[250,000]
10(c)(1)
432
Individual fine, base felony tier
§ 3571(b)(3) parity
n.19 — same instruction
\$[1,000,000]
10(c)(2)(C)
437
Individual fine in the harm tier, per offense
18 U.S.C. § 1350
n.19 — counted per victim
\$[1,000,000]
11(a)
481
Sanctions threshold above which an award is payable
none — SEC’s § 21F structure has no state sibling
n.11
[twelve] months
7(a)
322
Disgorgement tail after a violation ceases
17 C.F.R. § 240.10D-1 lookback
n.18
[twelve] months
7(b)
355
Conforming window for insurance contracts in force
—
n.33 — the ban is prospective
Sentencing
Bracket
§
Line
Governs
Enacted sibling
Note
[felony]
10(c)(2)
434
Classification of the harm tier
local penal grid
Each state’s counsel conforms the class
[two] years
10(c)(2)(B)
436
Death-results minimum
federal pattern is twenty; this Act declines it
n.21 — open at READ FIRST 3(c); a criminal-law scholar’s question, not a drafting choice
[forty] years
10(c)(3)
452
Cap on consecutive determinate terms for one course of conduct
K.S.A. 21-6819(b)(4) double rule
n.21 — sits between the MPC formula and unlimited stacking
[ten] years
6(b)(2)
299
Recidivist washout
21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(2) has none
n.22 — more merciful than the source
[10] days
10(d)(3)
468
Post-deprivation hearing after an emergency suspension
21 U.S.C. § 332/334 pattern
n.10
Records and limitations
Bracket
§
Line
Governs
Enacted sibling
Note
[ten] years
12
501
Baseline records retention from creation
EU AI Act art. 18(1) decade
n.23
[five] years
12
501
Deployment tail after the system last operates in-state
IL § 10(d)(3) “deployed plus 5”
n.23
[five] / [ten] years
12
519–522
Limitations: general, continuing, concealed, harm tier
—
n.23 — the harm-tier period keys to an offense, not a penalty schedule
[calendar quarter]
8
377
Batch cadence for sub-material certifications
SOX quarterly rhythm
n.39
Institutional placeholders
Bracket
§
Governs
Note
[designated state agency, board, or commission]
3(a)
The Agency
Name an existing body; the Act is drafted so its inaction cannot stall the criminal core
[the State public-records act]
12
The confidentiality exemption
Conform to the local statute’s name
[the State register]
13(c)
Where suspension orders publish
Conform to the local publication of record
[Frontier AI Accountability Fund]
10(f)
The fund’s name and destination
Election: appropriated to the Agency’s functions, or reverting to the general fund
[the court of general jurisdiction …]
13(c)(4)
Venue for review of a suspension order
Proposed at v3.5, CURE 2 — not yet in the tagged text
Counts. Twenty-eight bracketed instances across fourteen sections; roughly twenty distinct choices once repeats are collapsed. Two are not free choices: the pin date (above) and the death-results minimum (open for a criminal-law scholar, not for local preference).
Compiled 20 August 2026 against the v3.4 tag. Where a line number and the text disagree, the text controls; a wrong line here is an erratum like any other — FrontierAIAccountabilityProject@proton.me.